Bibliographie sélective OHADA

A reconstruction of CCMA commissioners' perceptions of dispute resolution in South Africa: A multi-perspective approach This study focuses on the problems in the dispute resolution system in South Africa. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of commissioners of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) regarding the capacity of parties to effectively deal with labour .conflict and disputes within the legal framework provided by the Labour Relations Act (LRA) (66/95). This includes an investigation into the reasons for the high referral rate of unfair dismissal cases to the CCMA and the influence of the case-overload on the effective functioning of the disputé resolution system. The · functionalist and conflict theoretical perspectives are used to study the structural aspects of the dispute resolution system and to explore structural strain. The interactionist perspective is used in the methodology of this study to reconstruct the perceptions of a group of CCMA commissioners. This study is predominantly of a qualitative nature and was conducted in an exploratory manner through in-depth interviews and e-mail questionnaires. Dunlop's open systems approach allowed for the conceptualisation of the major dispute resolution components of the labour relations system. T!Je analysis of the transformation of conflict formed the basis for understanding the background, the problem statement, the aims and assumptions of this study. lt was found that the guidelines in Schedule eight of the LRA (66/95) have become the norm for dealing with conflict within an enterprise, creating complex and technical processes for dealing with disputes. However, most of the employers and individual employees do not have the knowledge and skills to operate effectively in the system. This has led to a new type of adversarialism in the individual employment relationship, which is based on rights, rules and power. The very technical nature of the internai conflict resolution mechanisms, the incapacity of the parties and the adversarial nature of the labour relationship have resulted in the high referral rate and consequent problems that the CCMA is experiencing.

This thesis examines two research questions: first, whether confidentiality in international commercial arbitration (‘ICA’) is an ‘accepted principle’, and second, if the answer to the first question is positive, whether confidentiality should be regulated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (‘UNCITRAL’) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments adopted in 2006 (‘Model Law’) and how such a provision would be framed. To place the questions in context, there is empirical evidence that confidentiality is expected by users of ICA but despite this expectation there appears to be no uniform approach on confidentiality in national laws and institutional rules.

The success of commercial arbitration law and practice is achieved as a result of several factors. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether efficacy of commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho is hindered by the legal framework which does not conform to the United Nations Commission Trade Law on International Commercial Arbitration, UNCITRAL Model Law. Examining such other factors as support of the courts and government, the study specifically investigated the impact of lack of education about commercial arbitration for the business community and unregulated arbitrators on the efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho. With the use of the desk reviews and interviews as data collection methods for this study, the evidence obtained has revealed that efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho is hampered by the law which is outdated and inconsistent with the UNCITRAL Model law. As such, support for the mechanism by the courts has been found to be at stake or adversely affected. Lack of support from the government and that of awareness campaigns about the mechanism for the business community have also been noted for constraining the efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in the country. Further noticeable from the findings include limited commitment from the legal profession and unregulated arbitrators, both of which could have significantly obstructed the mechanism. The study thus concludes that there is an urgent need for law reforms and concerted commitment from the relevant stakeholders to help towards achieving efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho.

International investment law is facing a legitimacy crisis, in which to tackle, substantial efforts are being made in structural and procedural areas. The first step to overcoming this crisis is identifying the roots of it. The lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is one of the main factors creating this legitimacy crisis in this legal system.[1] This paper focuses on the changes in the investment arbitration jurisprudence to create this balance. The findings of this paper can explain one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law. Such a claim is based on the evolution of international trade law in facing a similar legitimacy issue and the structural-procedural approach of this legal system in balancing public and private interests as an ultimate solution to the crisis.[2] From this perspective, one of the major factors in creating a legitimacy crisis in both legal systems is the dominance of the paradigm for preference of private interests; and one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law has been to replace it by accepting the paradigm of creating a dynamic balance between competing goals.[3] This paper examines this convergence in arbitral jurisprudence.IntroductionIn recent years, the legitimacy crisis of the regime of international investment law and, as a result, the investor-state dispute settlement system has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the academic environment and the practice of states consequently, serious efforts in various fields to tackle this crisis have begun. According to this paper, choosing an arbitration mechanism modeled on international commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between host states and foreign investors can be evaluated as a wrong and hasty action that, regardless of its factors and contexts, has changed the nature and function of this system over time.[4] It should be noted that the main factor in such consequences is how this dispute resolution system is used which, contrary to the accepted model, always puts the host states in a "respondent" position in possible future disputes and, as a result, disrupts the balance expected in any international dispute settlement system. On this basis, the confrontation of the host state's sovereign competence in ensuring public interests with the foreign investors’ ability to challenge this competence is brought into the spotlight: currently, within the regime of international investment law, host states have only responsibilities and obligations in contrast to extensive and exclusive rights and privileges recognized for foreign investors, and this can be considered as the most important factor disturbing the said balance. The main issue in this field is to analyze the role of the investment arbitral tribunals in creating such a balance. In this regard, the authors, by focusing on the nature of investment treaties, and the relations between the parties in investment disputes and with emphasis on the general legal regime governing international investment, consider creating a dynamic balance between public and private interests to be the key to solving the crisis. They emphasize that; As long as the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute are based on imbalanced grounds, the change in nature of the disputes and the function of the system -as the main roots of this legitimacy crisis - will remain. In this remark, it is very important to focus on the two-sided nature (public-private) of the relationships established in the framework of investment treaties. The relationship between the host state and the foreign investor is created within the framework of investment treaties and in light of fundamental differences from purely private relationships in international commercial arbitration.[5] Note that any dispute arising from this relationship is affected by its inherently public nature governed by public international law.[6] Thus, a purely private attitude towards these relations does not seem viable. As Ian Brownlie has stated in the case of SME v. the Czech Republic, it can lead to ignoring some of the basic elements of the relevant investment treaty.[7] In other words, the right and duty of the host state in protecting and promoting public interests is a fundamental part of this relationship, and any indulgence of it leads to a serious disruption of the mentioned balance through which the system's legitimacy will be the first victim.It is clear that the main task of any dispute resolution system is to create such a balance, and on this basis, and compared to the WTO dispute resolution system, the role of the investment tribunals in this process is discussed. This jurisprudential convergence is in line with the goal of strengthening the legitimacy of the international investment law system as a whole.Based on the above, the first part of this paper focuses on the process of establishing the ISDS in international investment law and its characteristics, the factors of the crisis of legitimacy are analyzed with an analytical approach, while also explaining the nature of investment treaties and explaining the general legal regime governing international investment. Furthermore, the lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is emphasized as the main cause of the crisis. In the second part, while comparing the two legal systems of international trade and investment with a similar crisis of legitimacy, we will examine the interaction of investment arbitration with the WTO's jurisprudence in facing this crisis through a case study of several investment arbitral awards. [1]. David Gaukrodger, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Paper on International Investment 2017/02, at 4.[2]. Nicholas DiMascio & Joost Pauwelyn, “Non-Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?”, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008), at 89.[3]. Jurgen Kurtz and Sungioon Cho, “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics”, EJIL, Vol. 20, No. 1, (2018), at 187.[4]. Benedict Kingsbury & Stephan W. Schill, “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionalityˮ, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 76. [5]. Crina Baltag, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019), at 285.[6]. Ibid.[7]. Andreas Kulick, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013), at 438.

Cet article, est une contribution à la réflexion sur le statut de l’arbitre en droit OHADA, entamée par plusieurs chercheurs africains, et au centre de laquelle se trouve la problématique de l’immunité en droit de l’arbitrage OHADA. Le débat sur le choix d’un système d’immunité et la définition d’un véritable statut pour l’arbitre est toujours d’actualité. Cet article fait le point global des approches et conceptions sur l’immunité diplomatique des arbitres de la CCJA. En effet, le débat sur la responsabilité touche de façon étroite celui du statut de l’arbitre : la responsabilité étant la résultante d’un statut, cela nous permettra d’aborder la question du statut juridique de l’arbitre en droit OHADA. Dans un contexte où les différentes législations, la jurisprudence ou encore les conventions internationales, n’abordent que très peu le statut de l’arbitre, la détermination des éléments permettant de préciser les contours des devoirs, droits et obligations de l’arbitre, contribuera de façon certaine à mieux appréhender la mission de l’arbitre.

The position of international arbitration awards which is different from national arbitration awards and district court decisions causes differences in the rights and obligations of the parties to arbitral awards, especially those relating to legal remedies against awards. The formulation of the problem in this study is how are the rights and obligations of the parties to international arbitral awards in Indonesia. The research method used in this article is legal research using primary and secondary legal materials. The results of the study state that the rights possessed by the parties to international arbitral awards in Indonesia are related to legal remedies against decisions, namely corrections to these international arbitral awards. The corrections to the decisions here are not only limited to administrative corrections but also corrections related to the principal international arbitral awards made before the request for execution was registered at the Central Jakarta District Court. While the obligations of the parties to international arbitral awards are to carry out international arbitral awards in good faith.

This introduction provides the reader with a general characterization of the 39 Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (MATs) created by the 1919-1923 peace treaties to address disputes between private persons and between private persons and states as a result of the First World War. Noting that the rich literature published on the MATs was followed by near-silence after 1945, it mentions the numerous questions that they still raise today, before explaining how the various contributions to the book edited by the authors address them.

The processes by which a model of social regulation channels its way of resolving conflicts make the strength of its conflict resolution system. Court justice has lost its exemplary function. The crisis of effectiveness and the crisis of legitimacy that the processual mode of dispute resolution is undergoing in our States, make it a justice system that is considered to have broken down. The need for justice thus directly raises the question of social regulation, the relevant model of social regulation. The call for a ‘right to sue’ open to the system of alternative dispute resolution rather than restrictively to the judiciary to resolve disagreements is the spearhead of the combinatorial approach to the administration of conflicts, the ferment of a plural approach to access to justice. Has Cameroonian law begun to renew its vision of the right to take legal action? Does it renew the dominant classical approach to the system of social regulation? The study notes the global and integral recognition of the alternative dispute resolution system, another, less contentious, way of dealing with disputes, the emergence within the traditional dispute resolution system of a right to amicable dispute resolution, but in an embryonic state. It then poses, in a prospective approach, the need for a unitary and global approach to private justice as challenges to be met to ensure the quality of this form of justice.

Le recours à l’arbitrage en matière des litiges contractuels entre des parties privées présente des avantages par rapport aux procédures devant les tribunaux. Les avantages de l’arbitrage qui a une valeur particulière en matière contractuelle se multiplient : les arbitres peuvent être choisis en raison de leurs compétences spéciales selon le sujet du contrat; la confidentialité peut être préservée; l’arbitrage peut être utilisé pour régler des questions sur le même sujet ou des sujets semblables mais survenant dans des pays différents, ceci peut présenter l'avantage de régler en une seule fois tous les différends entre les parties, surtout en matière de commerce.

Dans une économie de plus en plus globalisée, faute d’harmonisation juridique, les parties aux litiges contractuels n’hésitent plus à consulter les forums juridiques pour identifier les pays susceptibles de leur offrir le meilleur niveau de protection. Presque tous les litiges en matière contractuels se prêtent au début des conflits à la médiation. Il arrive souvent que lors d’un litige relatif aux droits contractuels, les parties recourent à la médiation. Cependant, pour pouvoir y recourir de manière utile, il est important d’éluder certains obstacles. Un litige ayant trait à un contrat, soulève des questions complexes de faits et de droit, peut nécessiter des dépenses importantes et exiger la présence de témoins experts. Puisque l’obligation contractuelle émise sera presque toujours un enjeu, un litige ayant trait au commerce, notamment international, commande une connaissance approfondie de la législation sur les objets de transactions, ainsi qu’une expérience des tribunaux qui traitent la plupart du temps de ces questions. En pratique, l’espace de rencontre entre la médiation et les litiges contractuels est le contrat lui-même. Or, le domaine contractuel est le domaine privilégié de la médiation. En réalité, la médiation peut avoir lieu dans les relations liée aux contrats de commerce, dans lequel une dévolution des droits contractuels est prévue. Ce mode alternatif fournit un moyen pour éviter les contentieux judiciaires.

La place de l'arbitrage en droit de l'investissement est discutée. Les réfutations à son encontre grandissent. De nombreuses problématiques édulcorent la définition même de la notion d'investissement. Les controverses doctrinales restent toujours nombreuses et débattues à ce sujet. De même, des doctrines s'affrontent sur la question de savoir s'il faut ou non élaborer un corps de règles cohérentes pour des sentences arbitrales homogènes. L'opposition à l'arbitrage dans le droit de l'investissement se retrouve aussi dans les problématiques liées à l'exequatur des sentences arbitrales liées à l'arbitrage d'investissement dans l'Union européenne. Un manque de soutien apparent au développement de l'arbitrage dans l'Union européenne s'est installé, comme le démontre le récent traité CETA conclu entre l'Union européenne et le Canada. L'arbitrage d'investissement ferait courir le risque d'un recul de la souveraineté. En effet, du fait l'arbitrage d'investissement, les Etats seraient moins incités à légiférer sur des matières pouvant avoir un impact sur l'activité d'une entreprise étrangère, par crainte d'une procédure arbitrale. Un lien délicat apparait alors, entre souveraineté et arbitrage d'investissement. Plusieurs doctrines se sont longtemps affrontées, notamment celle élaborée par Calvo et Drago en Amérique Latine entre 1870 et 1900, proposant de réduire les droits des investisseurs étrangers, face à une doctrine opposée, celle militant pour un standard minimum international de protection des investisseurs étrangers. Or, une renaissance de ces débats apparaît aujourd'hui, avec une problématique liée à la souveraineté de plus en plus ancrée dans les débats liés à l'arbitrage d'investissement. Pourtant, l'arbitrage d'investissement doit être perçu comme une méthode permettant à des investisseurs de bénéficier d'un arbitre indépendant et permettant de « dépolitiser » les contentieux. Mais des Etats admettent de moins en moins que leurs lois établies démocratiquement pour l'intérêt général puissent être contestées par des investisseurs étrangers devant un tribunal arbitral. Des auteurs parlent de « chilling effect », par lequel des Etats n'osent plus légiférer, par crainte de contentieux ultérieurs. De plus en plus d'Etats refusent que leur droit soit remis en cause par des juges privés. Plusieurs questions se posent. Est-il toujours concevable de protéger davantage un investisseur étranger qu'un investisseur national ? Est-il légitime de privilégier des juges privés, plutôt que des juges nationaux pour trancher les litiges en matière d'investissement ? L'utilité de l'arbitrage peut être comprise, dans des pays où la justice étatique est dite « corrompue » ou « biaisée ». En pareille situation, un investisseur étranger est légitime à vouloir saisir un arbitre neutre et indépendant. Mais la légitimité d'avoir recours à l'arbitrage dans des pays développés bénéficiant d'une justice étatique indépendante pose plus de difficultés. Dès lors, faudrait-il limiter l'arbitrage d'investissement aux pays souffrant d'un déficit d'indépendance de justice étatique ? Et donc d'exclure ce mode de règlement des litiges en la matière dans l'Union européenne ? La « politisation » du débat est en pleine renaissance. L'arbitrage d'investissement est un domaine relativement jeune et il convient de se demander s'il s'agit là d'un mode de règlement des litiges adéquat et d'un mode adapté au commerce international en général ? Assistera-t-on prochainement ou assiste-t-on déjà à ce que des auteurs qualifient de « fin de cycle » ? Il s'agit de questions ancrées dans l'actualité, que ce soit en France ou ailleurs dans le monde. The place of arbitration in investment law is discussed. The rebuttals are growing. Many issues water down the very definition of the notion of investment. The doctrinal controversies are still numerous and debated on this subject. Similarly, doctrines clash on the question of whether or not it is necessary to develop a body of coherent rules for homogeneous arbitral awards. The opposition to arbitration in investment law is also found in issues related to the exequatur of arbitral awards related to investment arbitration in the European Union. An apparent lack of support for the development of arbitration in the European Union has set in, as demonstrated by the recent CETA treaty concluded between the European Union and Canada. Investment arbitration would run the risk of a decline in sovereignty. Indeed, because of investment arbitration, States would be less encouraged to legislate on matters that could have an impact on the activity of a foreign company, because of the fear of arbitration proceedings. A delicate link then appears between sovereignty and investment arbitration. Several doctrines have long clashed, in particular the one developed by Calvo and Drago in Latin America between 1870 and 1900, proposing to reduce the rights of foreign investors, in front of an opposing doctrine, that campaigning for a minimum international standard of protection for foreign investors. A revival of these debates is appearing today, with an issue linked to sovereignty increasingly rooted in the debates linked to investment arbitration. However, investment arbitration must be seen as a method allowing investors to benefit from an independent arbitrator and allowing disputes to be “depoliticised”. But states admit less and less that their laws democratically established for the general interest can be challenged by foreign investors before an arbitration tribunal. Authors talk about the “chilling effect”, by which States no longer dare to legislate, because of the fear of subsequent litigation. More and more States refuse to have their rights challenged by private judges. Several questions arise. Is it always conceivable to protect a foreign investor more than a national investor ? Is it legitimate to favor private judges, rather than national judges, to settle investment disputes ? The usefulness of arbitration can be understood in countries where state justice is said to be “corrupt” or “biased”. In such a situation, a foreign investor is legitimate in wanting to seize a neutral and independent arbitrator. But the legitimacy of having recourse to arbitration in developed countries benefiting from independent state justice arouses more difficulties. Therefore, should investment arbitration be limited to countries suffering from a lack of independence of state justice ? And therefore to exclude this method of settling disputes in this area in the European Union ? The “politicization” of the debate is in full revival. Investment arbitration is a relatively young field and it is worth asking whether it is an adequate mode of dispute resolution and a mode suitable for international trade in general ? Will we soon witness or are we already witnessing what some authors describe as the “end of the cycle” ? These are issues rooted in the news, whether in France or elsewhere in the world.

The author of Third Party Funding in International Arbitration challenges the structural inconsistencies of the current practices of arbitration funding by arguing that third party funding should be a forum of justice, rather than a forum of profit. The author introduces a new methodology with an alternative way of structuring third party funding to solve a set of practical problems generated by the risk of claim control by the funder.

The main purpose of this research is to explain and identify the major Investor-State Arbitration (ISA) problems in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's government is committed to providing legal security for the resolution of foreign investment disputes. The dispute resolution system's assessment is very important for foreign investors because they pay special attention to the dispute resolution system and consider it a criterion for their investments. This research will be the first comprehensive study about the Investor-State Arbitration problems in Afghanistan. In the writing of this research, the library method has been used. To extract reasons, laws, books, articles, and reliable scientific sources have been used. Afghanistan is a good market for foreign investment because it has good investment opportunities in different sectors. Foreign investors can choose the easiest and best mechanisms, such as arbitration in their contracts to deal with disputes. But the resolution of foreign investment through arbitration has some problems, and sometimes foreign investors are facing challenges with the settlement of their disputes through arbitration internationally and domestically in Afghanistan.

Dans la conception traditionnelle de la diplomatie, l'action extérieure des États est cantonnée aux domaines politique, économique et culturel. Le droit est plus rarement pris en compte comme outil d'influence dans l'action extérieure des États.Or, le droit joue un rôle fondamental dans la diplomatie économique. En effet, un pays qui n'est pas capable de défendre son système juridique est un pays qui économiquement est en péril, car c'est un pays qui ne peut pas s'exporter.Si la France par exemple, ou d'autres pays, se mettent à la remorque de l'Alternative Dispute Resolution jusque dans leur propre droit interne, ces pays ne pourront plus exporter leur système juridique au risque de ne plus pouvoir exporter tout court. Ils risquent alors de perdre une partie essentielle et substantielle de leur capacité de projection sur la scène internationale.De même, lorsque la francophonie économique perd du terrain, c'est tout un pan de la diplomatie économique qui perd de sa force de frappe.Avec les clauses compromissoires et clauses de médiation inspirées des modèles anglo-saxons qui se répandent dans les contrats internationaux, comment les juridictions des pays francophones qui ont été calquées sur le système judicaire français pourront-elles continuent à exister ? Les arbitres anglo-saxons finiront-ils par imposer lentement mais sûrement la Common law ? Il y a là un enjeu de diplomatie économique énorme.Nous verrons comment défendre au mieux la francophonie économique et juridique en évitant que l'Alternative Dispute Resolution ne devienne le cheval de Troie du droit anglo-saxon, avec à terme, le risque que des systèmes nationaux disparaissent.Ce sont là des questions légitimes et très graves, et l'on peut comprendre qu'elles soient posées avec une certaine persistance.Avec l'élargissement continu du champ des relations internationales, le droit doit devenir l'objet d'une politique extérieure stratégique à part entière. C'est pourquoi nous plaidons pour la mise en place d'une diplomatie juridique française et formulons des recommandations ainsi qu'une stratégie d'influence juridique extérieure.En prenant la défense et en illustrant le droit continental et le droit français dans le droit global à travers les exemples de la médiation et de l'arbitrage international, nous espérons contribuer à l'ébauche d'une théorie de la diplomatie juridique et à ouvrir des pistes nouvelles de réflexion en matière d'influence internationale, en particulier d'influence juridique internationale.Nous espérons contribuer ainsi modestement mais utilement à la défense du droit français et du droit continental pour que la confrontation et la compétition des système juridiques n'aboutissent pas à la domination d'un système juridique sur un autre mais que cette compétition aille au contraire dans le sens d'un meilleur équilibre entre les systèmes juridiques, dans le sens du progrès et de l'amélioration du droit français et du droit continental, mais aussi - s'il se peut -dans le sens des progrès dans la défense des causes et des valeurs universelles. In the traditional conception of diplomacy, the external action of States is confined to the political, economic and cultural domains. Law is more rarely taken into account as a tool of influence in the external action of States.However, Law plays a fundamental role in economic diplomacy. Indeed, a country that is not able to defend its legal system is a country that is economically in danger, because it is a country that cannot be exported. If France, for example, or other countries, follow the Alternative Dispute Resolution right up to their own domestic law, these countries will no longer be able to export their legal system at the risk of no longer being able to export at all. They then risk losing an essential and substantial part of their ability to project themselves on the international scene.Similarly, when the economic Francophonie loses ground, a whole section of economic diplomacy loses its strike force.With arbitration clauses and mediation clauses inspired by Anglo-Saxon models that are spreading in international contracts, how will the courts of French-speaking countries that have been modeled on the French judicial system be able to continue to exist? Will Anglo-Saxon arbitrators end up slowly but surely imposing the Common law? There is a huge stake in economic diplomacy here.We will see how best to defend the economic and legal Francophonie by preventing the Alternative Dispute Resolution from becoming the Trojan horse of Anglo-Saxon law, with the eventual risk that national systems will disappear.These are legitimate and very serious questions, and one can understand that they are asked with a certain persistence.With the continuous widening of the field of international relations, Law must become the object of a strategic foreign policy. This is why we plead for the establishment of a French legal diplomacy and formulate recommendations as well as a strategy of external legal influence.By defending and illustrating continental law and French law in global law through the examples of mediation and international arbitration, we hope to contribute to the sketch of a theory of legal diplomacy and to open new paths of reflection in terms of international influence, in particular international legal influence.We hope in this way to contribute modestly but usefully to the defense of French law and continental law so that the confrontation and competition of legal systems does not lead to the domination of one legal system over another but that this competition goes on the contrary in the sense of a better balance between legal systems, in the direction of progress and improvement of French law and continental law, but also - if possible - in the direction of progress in the defense of universal causes and values.

There is a growing stream of critics who see investment arbitration in favor of foreign investors and as a negative force as opposed to sustainable development. The phenomenon of third-party funding and its use in investment arbitration has increased such concerns. Third-party funding is basically the payment of all or a part of the arbitration costs of one of the parties of dispute by a third party funder which in return, the funder receives a percentage of the output of the award if successful. The purpose of this article is to explain and analyze the theoretical differences between pros and cons of third-party funding regarding the access to justice, screening mechanism for the claims, and the financial consequences on the host state. In this article, the advocates see third-party funding as a means of access to justice for aggrieved investors in investment claims, while the adversaries refering on the profitability of third-party funding, see this method in arbitration a form of wealth transfer from public sector to private corporations and also refer to the asymmetric structure of the investment arbitration regime as well as the risks arising from the transfer of management and control of arbitration process to the third party funders. یک جریان رو به رشدی از منتقدان وجود دارد که داوری سرمایه‌گذاری را به نفع سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی و بعنوان یک نیروی منفی در تضاد با توسعه پایدار می‌داند. پدیده تأمین مالی ثالث و بکارگیری آن در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری به این نگرانی‌ها افزوده است. تأمین مالی ثالث اساساً پرداخت تمام یا بخشی از هزینه‌های داوری یکی از طرفین دعوی توسط تأمین کننده شخص ثالث است که در ازای آن، تأمین کننده مالی درصدی از رأی صادره را در صورت پیروزی دریافت می‌نماید. هدف مقاله، تشریح و تحلیل اختلافات نظری موافقان و مخالفان تأمین مالی ثالث در خصوص دستیابی به عدالت، غربالگری دعاوی و تبعات مالی آن بر دولت است. در این مقاله موافقان، تأمین مالی ثالث را ابزاری جهت دستیابی به عدالت برای سرمایه‌گذاران زیان‌دیده در دعاوی سرمایه‌گذاری در نظر می‌گیرند در حالی که مخالفان با اتکا به اهداف سودآوری تأمین مالی ثالث، این روش را در داوری نوعی انتقال ثروت از بخش عمومی به بخش خصوصی می‌دانند و به ساختار نامتقارن رژیم داوری سرمایه‌گذاری و خطرات ناشی از انتقال مدیریت و کنترل فرایند داوری به تأمین کنندگان شخص ثالث نیز اشاره می‌نمایند.

The final and binding nature of international arbitral awards results in the nullification of the rights of the parties to file legal remedies against the arbitral award, as is the case with decisions of national courts that can be appealed, appealed, or reviewed. However, Article 68 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution provides an opportunity for parties who refuse to recognize and implement an international arbitral award that can be appealed to, as well as Article 70 must also be explained that Article this applies only to national arbitrations. This of course creates legal uncertainty, disuse, and injustice for the parties. Therefore, what is highlighted in this research is what is the position of the final and binding international arbitration award in Indonesia. The research method used in this article is legal research using primary and secondary legal materials. The results of the research show that the position of international arbitral awards in Indonesia is not the same as the decisions of national courts because they cannot be appealed, cassated, and reviewed. Therefore, it is necessary to completely amend international arbitration arrangements by removing Article 68 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in order to provide legal certainty, benefit, and justice for the parties.

Alors que deux entreprises sont liées par une convention d’arbitrage, une procédure d’insolvabilité est ouverte en Belgique à l’égard de l’une d’elles. De nombreuses questions émergent : L’instance arbitrale en cours doit-elle être suspendue ? Dans la positive, pourra-t-elle reprendre ? Les pouvoirs de l’arbitre sont-ils impactés ? L’instance n’a pas débuté, la validité de la convention d’arbitrage est-elle compromise ? La convention n’existe pas, les parties peuvent-elles la conclure ? L’entreprise en difficulté perd-elle sa capacité compromissoire ? Cette capacité est-elle transférée au praticien de l’insolvabilité ? La sentence a été rendue, peut-elle être exécutée ? Dans le présent exposé, nous mettons l’arbitrage à l’épreuve des procédures belges d’insolvabilité d’entreprises.